1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a computer based system that provides a method for real time data storage and retrieval for the purpose of verifying and validating sales transactions and product return/warranty repair eligibility. Additionally, the present invention relates to an improved electronic system for registering product transactions and to a method for efficient handling of product return transactions. More particularly, the present invention relates to an electronic registration system which facilitates compliance with return policies and is useful in reducing improper or fraudulent product returns under warranty, and which provides related functionality to third parties and the like.
2. Related Art
Product returns are a market reality faced by virtually every manufacturer, distributor, supplier or retailer of commercial products. Unfortunately, handling product returns often requires a significant expenditure of resources. For example, it may be necessary to employ one or more individuals to verify that product returns satisfy the requirements of a company's return policy. This process can be complicated due to the fact that a particular retailer often carries numerous different type of products from different manufacturers, each of which often has their own return and warranty policies and procedures. As a result, the personnel responsible for processing the product return transactions at, for example, a retail store, must know or manually look-up the applicable return policies and procedures for the particular product that a person is attempting to return. This is a difficult, time-consuming, and error-prone process that often results in improper acceptance or rejection of product returns and/or warranty claims at the retail level. Once a product is accepted for return at the retail level, the retailer then typically returns the product to the manufacturer for credit. However, when the retail store accepts a product return that does not comply with the manufacturers return policy, problems result between the retailer and the manufacturer because the manufacturer will refuse or be reluctant to accept the returned product from the retailer. Moreover, significant time and expense is wasted when a retailer improperly accepts products for return that do not comply with the manufacturer's return policy. Often times the improperly returned products are shipped to the manufacturer and then are simply returned to the retailer upon be rejected for return by the manufacturer. This results in significant wasted shipping charges and employee time in attempting to resolve such matters. This situation can also result in significant tension between the retailer and the manufacturer. In other words, when a returns are not properly handled at the retail level, numerous problems result for the retailer and the manufacturer.
Alternatively, a company might choose to avoid the increased overhead associated with additional employees and be somewhat less diligent about verifying compliance with the return policy. However, this alternative can increase costs due to the higher number of improper product returns. Either way, additional costs must either by borne by the company or passed along to the consumer.
In addition to the costs associated with verifying compliance with a return policy, even proper product returns incur additional administrative costs. Examples of such costs include shipping and handling of the returned product, repackaging and redistribution of the returned product (if appropriate), disposal of certain returned products, and the like. These costs must also be borne either by the company or by the consumer in the form of higher prices.
It is, of course, desirable to minimize costs associated with product returns to permit reduced prices to the customer and/or provide improved operating margins for the manufacturer and/or the retailer. There are two major areas in which savings may be realized: (1) reducing the number of improper or fraudulent returns; and (2) improving efficiency and reducing overhead in handling proper returns.
Manufacturers, retailers and other vendors of consumer products often have a standard return policy. For example, a retailer return policy might allow a consumer to return a purchased product for any reason within a certain number of days (e.g., 10 days) after purchase. Additionally, a manufacturer's warranty may permit return of defective products within a particular time period (e.g., 90 days) after purchase, and provide for repairs of defective products within a different time period (e.g., 180 days). Repairs of products after that date would be the responsibility of the consumer. Such return policies are intended to ensure consumer satisfaction while protecting the manufacturer and/or the retailer from improper returns. As a result, a delicate balance must be maintained between protection of the retailer or manufacturer and consumer satisfaction.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to monitor product returns to ensure proper compliance with a return policy. For example, a consumer who received a product as a gift usually will not have a sales receipt. In such a situation, an uninformed decision must often be made to accept the return or not. If the return is not accepted, the consumer might unfairly be denied a proper return, and the retailer and the manufacturer risk suffering a loss of goodwill. On the other hand, if the return is accepted, the retailer and/or the manufacturer will incur expenses or losses which might be unwarranted. Some retailers seek to minimize the effect of possible improper returns by limiting a consumer to store credit (rather than a refund) or exchanges on items returned without a receipt. This alternative, however, may be unacceptable to a consumer and does not completely eliminate the retailers' exposure to improper returns.
Difficulties associated with returns made without a receipt stem primarily from the inability of the retailer to obtain purchase information (such as sales date, place of purchase, etc.) concerning the individual item for which a return is sought. Without such information, it is usually impossible for the retailer to determine whether the return is in compliance with the return policy.
In addition to the foregoing, fraudulent returns can cost product retailers and manufacturers significant sums of money. As an example, upon release of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (Super NES), Nintendo experienced a high volume of returns of basic NES hardware. When the returned products were evaluated, it was discovered that a high percentage of the products were not defective and, in fact, were several years old. Thus, customers were abusing the retailer's return policy to exchange old products and upgrade to the new system. Such abuses increase costs to the retailers and manufacturers. These costs are often passed on to purchasers without any attendant benefit to legitimate consumers.
While companies generally try to prevent fraudulent returns, the personnel responsible for processing such returns do not have the suitable resources and/or information needed to assure that only proper returns are accepted. This problem is compounded when the consumer does not have a receipt because it has been lost or because the product was received as a gift from another person. While many of these situations represent legitimate return requests, a significant percentage of such return requests are fraudulently made by consumers. Unscrupulous consumers have in recent years become increasingly creative in their attempts to return merchandise which does not in fact qualify for return under the purchase agreement. For example, a customer may purchase a product at a reduced price at one store and then attempt to return the product to another store for a profit. Customers have also been known to purchase a new product and then return an older or defective product (which no longer qualifies for return or warranty repair) in the new product packaging, thereby obtaining the new product at no cost. Under current practice, retailers are at a significant disadvantage in connection with product return requests, because they typically do not know whether a product has been purchased from their store or another store, or even how much was originally paid for the product even if the product was purchased at its store. Return audits have shown that a significant number of consumers use this disadvantage to their personal benefit and at the cost of the retailer and manufacturer.
In the past several years, retailers and the industry have shown renewed interest in curbing the volume of unwarranted and fraudulent product returns. This interest is largely due to diminishing profit margins and the competitive nature of the retailing business. Because of thin profit margins, retailers and manufacturers can no longer absorb the cost of unjustified product returns. Unless product returns are significantly reduced, retailers and/or manufacturers will have little choice but to pass these costs on to the consumer in the form of price increases.
Prompt and efficient handling of returns and proper enforcement of return policies helps to keep down costs while maintaining consumer confidence and satisfaction. However, efforts to speed handling or improve enforcement lose their value if the expense of those efforts outweighs the accompanying benefit. Accordingly, such efforts must be efficient to benefit the manufacturers, retailer and the consumer.
Another problem confronted by retailers stems from the fact that different manufactures may have different return policies. For example, one manufacturer may require returns to take place within 90 days of the original purchase, whereas others may permit returns up to 120 days or 180 days after the original purchase. Similarly, some manufacturers may have strict limitations on product returns without original packaging or returns of products wherein relatively minor parts (e.g., instruction manuals, connecting cables, etc.) are missing. Because of the variety of manufacturer return policies, it is often difficult for a retailer to ensure proper compliance. As a practical matter, it may be extremely difficult or even impossible to educate the retailer staff with regard to each return policy. This problem is compounded by the fact that manufacturers and/or retailers may have returns policies that vary between products. Moreover, a retailer often carries products for many different retailers. Manufacturers or retailers may also have special return or warranty policies for products which are sold at reduced prices, for example. Some manufacturers may also only allow returns that are within a specified period of time starting from the date of shipment to the retailer, rather than from the date the product is purchased by a consumer. In fact, in today's market it is not uncommon for a single manufacturer or retailer to have numerous different return and/or warranty policies that apply depending on the particular product and the particular conditions under which the product was purchased.
Thus, retailers may be placed in a position where improper returns are inadvertently accepted or where proper returns are rejected. Accepting improper returns increases costs which must either be absorbed or passed on to customers in the form of higher prices or restocking fees, for example. Of course, rejecting proper returns may damage goodwill between the vendor and the customer.
Accordingly, there is a need for a system which facilitates authorized product returns for a number of different manufacturers and/or products yet reduces the incidence of unauthorized returns. Additionally, there is a need for a product purchase registration system which minimizes costs associated with returns, improves retailer efficiency in handling product returns, increases overall customer satisfaction, and provides retailers with immediate access to purchase data information for products of various manufacturers. Further, there is a need for additional capabilities in connection with product sale information. For example, third party warranty providers, law enforcement agencies, insurance providers, reverse logistics organizations and the like may utilize product registration information to verify ownership or sales data and to benefit rightful owners of purchased goods.
It is a primary object of the present invention to satisfy these needs. A further object of the present invention is to enable retailers to more efficiently and effectively enforce applicable product return/warranty policies, even in situations in which the person seeking the return no longer has the sales receipt. Another object of the invention to reduce fraudulent product returns, and to protect the retailer and manufacturer from the cost and inconvenience associated therewith. A further object of the invention, is to provide a method and system available at the return location, such as a retail store check-out counter or customer service counter, which is operable to quickly and accurately verify whether the particular product sought to be returned does or does not qualifies for return under the applicable return criteria for that particular product, prior to accepting the product for return. Another object of the invention is to provide the customer with useful information regarding the product even if the product does not qualify for return, thereby improving customer satisfaction even when returns are not accepted. Yet another object of the invention is to reduce the need to return products by providing technical information regarding set-up or operation of the product to the consumer for the purpose of solving a problem the consumer is having with the product, thereby reducing the need to return products. Still another object of the invention is to provide the store personnel with information on the particular product being returned, which information enables verification of whether or not the product being returned includes all of the original parts or components prior to accepting the product for return.